About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
was always crazy. but some of those like tim pawlenty, if you go watch back when he was on jon stewart the first time i ever saw him, he struck me a as a nice fella. and purposely reasonable guy. and now he is saying a lot of crazy stuff. the question is, whether they'll to come back from the? what seems to be hav happening s they seem to be setting up mitch daniels to be the guy. he will strike everybody as sane. he will be a very tough opponent. and as far as the demographics, well, i think minorities and young people are going to be the hardest people to turn out after the disappointment of, between 2008 and 2012. i think a lot of people, george bush was so horrible, and again the idea of electing an african-american named barack hussein obama was so amazing that i think we can all forgive ourselves whatever illusions we had up through election day. i forgive myself. but the fact is, is that he, the greatest criticism i would make of obama is, because again, i wrote a whole book called the system versus barack obama. we had to fight to change the system. just a quick aside because t
you want to hit on. and then we'll open it up from more conversation. >> thanks, jon. first, i just want to thank martin and tom for the very gracious comment and i think quite helpful insights about the dodd-frank act. so i might just take 2 minutes or 3 minutes to highlight some issues and then we can open it up on -- or jon can lead us through conversation. on martin's comment, i think i agree with an aspect of martin's comments on resolution authority. if there is -- if there is an error in the dodd-frank act on the mix of crisis tools which undoubtedly it will be. it's in the direction martin indicated, in the direction of being overly constraining of treasury and the fed of the crisis. i don't think the error -- often in the public debate people suggest errors is the other direction. i think martin is correct. if we erred in limiting authorities, not in being -- not to insufficiently tough about them. on tom's comments, i do think there's always this debate in the regulatory structure. it's impossible to escape between rules and discretion. it's a debate that's been around for
on a diet. i'm going to add calories to my excluded food intake." unquote. that was jon stewart. he hit the nail on the head. for sure it's easy to make fun but what the president is trying to do with tax expenditures is no laughing matter. liberals talk about tax expenditures as though they were just getting rid of wasteful spending. first, as a legal matter, tax expenditures are not spending. outlays are checks cut from the treasury department are defined as spending under the congressional budget act. that's what spending is. yet, most tax expenditures only lose revenue and do not include an outlay portion. tax expenditures that only lose revenue contain no spending as defined by the congressional budget act and is scored by the official scorekeepers for congress. the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office. and second, as a policy matter twhe comes to tax -- when it comes to tax expenditures, one person's loophole is another person's opportunity to save for college and retirement, finance a home and ties to your -- taoeugts -- tithes to your church. reducing
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)